On 22/05/2009, John Bollinger <thinma...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > sebb wrote: > > Below is a sample of how we might proceed with the removal of > > Serializable from implementations. > > > > Feedback please! > > > [...] > > > > /** Serializable version identifier. */ > > private static final long serialVersionUID = -2036131698031167221L;
I left this unchanged. > I strongly recommend using small integers (i.e. 1 for this version) for the > serialVersionUID values. These are more meaningful and easier to maintain. > Such values also make it clear(er) to maintainers that they must think about > the value, as opposed to always updating it to match the value that would be > auto-generated by Java. (Classes can be changed in ways that do not alter > their serialized representation, but do change the automatic SUID.) The only > advantage to manually declaring the automatic SUID value is for serialization > compatibility with previous versions of the class, but I'm not sure that's a > relevant concern in this case. > I agree with the above; perhaps the best approach would be to change the UID when the class has been reviewed to ensure that the docs and impl. are OK? > John > > > -- > John Bollinger > thinma...@yahoo.com > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
